Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated |
| Date | 2025-11-29 10:38 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10gf7i4$3hehl$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (25 earlier) <10g8vr5$16p4g$1@dont-email.me> <10g90aq$154ar$4@dont-email.me> <10gbll0$271gk$1@dont-email.me> <10gccjf$2g9ua$1@dont-email.me> <10geea6$37qig$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 11/29/2025 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.46:
>> On 11/28/2025 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 9.58:
>>>> On 11/26/2025 11:49 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.17:
>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 17.11.2025 klo 15.31:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevanto to the semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comp.theory. But yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test.c halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D), either simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D) with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or do whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to C semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore is not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour
>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must
>>>>>>>>>>> include the
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> access is
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>> unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>>>>>>>>>> main requires HHH to report on information
>>>>>>>>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the
>>>>>>>>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt
>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
>>>>>>>> not mean that the requirements are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>>>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>>>>>>>> property.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That the information that HHH is required to report
>>>>>>>> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
>>>>>>>> the requirements wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it merely means that the designer ot HHH has failed to
>>>>>>> specify the
>>>>>>> encoding rules so that the input contains the full specification
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with
>>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one who disagrees with the x86 processors about the x86
>>>>> language semantics. When an x86 processor executes a program it
>>>>> executes
>>>>> according to the x86 semantics. When DD is executed according to
>>>>> the x86
>>>>> semantics it halts. Anybody who says that DD specifies a non-halting
>>>>> behaviour disagrees with the x86 semantics.
>>>
>>>> But, DD can halt or not halt, right?
>>>
>>> When Olcott uses the name DD he means the particular program in his
>>> GitHub repository except when he wants to deceive with equivocation.
>>> The DD is Olcotts repository halts.
>
>> I am doing this in the C programming language so that
>> every detail can be concretely specified and thus no
>> important details are simply abstracted away.
>>
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>> HHH on line 1081
>> DD on line 1355
>
> The DD on line 1355 is the DD I mentioned above and whicn is listed
> below. HHH always means the HHH on line 1081 except when otherwise
> stated. HHH(DD) means the HHH on line 1081 is called with the pointer
> to the DD on line 1355 as the argument. THat call returns 0, which
> means that DD does not halt.
>
HHH(DD)==0 has nothing to do with DD executed from main.
The DD executed from main is the caller of HHH(DD) thus
cannot as be one-and-the-same-thing as an argument to HHH.
If you think so then you knowledge of C is abysmal.
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting sequence.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:00 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:17 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:29 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 18:35 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 13:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:53 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 16:48 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:00 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 23:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:20 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:51 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:02 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:42 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 02:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:37 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:15 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 06:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 08:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:16 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:17 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:41 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:00 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:59 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:49 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:58 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:14 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:46 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 10:59 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:27 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:45 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:29 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:19 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:29 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:31 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 16:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:41 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:24 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:54 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:07 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:14 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 13:34 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:17 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:15 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:26 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:21 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:37 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:52 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:01 -0500
csiph-web